memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Archduk3/Archive 15
Cities and States in Storm Front Does the rationale that apply to countries and cities in "The Cage" apply to the articles for cities and states in ? Are they open to deletion?Lakenheath72 (talk) 10:31, February 7, 2015 (UTC) :Not necessarily, since as far as I know that map was created specifically for those episodes. - 15:42, February 7, 2015 (UTC) ::For what it's worth, it was definitely made specifically for the episode: http://www.adg.org/?art=member_profile&WINID=3034 -- Capricorn (talk) 19:36, February 7, 2015 (UTC) A piece of advice Don't ever link to a page which can be used to defeat your argument, if your intention is to win the argument. You wrote, The resource policy states that production and reference materials "...should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one." '' When you included a paragraph from the resource policy, you deliberately altered it. The paragraph reads, ''Please note that text from these works should not be repeated verbatim in articles. The relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one. For example, include information about Spock's species on the page for Vulcans, and not in every article that mentions Spock. By altering the paragraph, you altered its intention, so that it would suit your needs. The text, in layman English, says, don't copy the paragraph from a reference source. Say it in your own words and include the information in an appendix of the most relevant page. By altering the text, you placed all production and reference materials under the same category. This would equate to an user being unable to make an article based on an Okudagram, a dedication plaque, or even the map seen in . These are all production works and all are subject to deletion. That is not what the section is referring to; it is referrring to a smaller subsection of production and reference material. According to that same resource policy, as the map was seen in the episode, it doesn't fall under the fourth category of reference works created by non-production staff. The resource policy says, Portions of sets, props, makeup, and costumes to the extent not seen on-screen in an episode, even if they existed in real life. Now, if that map was not seen in the episode, I would not be allowed to write about any portion of the map in the main text of the work. Instead, that material would have to be mentioned in an appendix, and in the most relevant article. To give an example, from another part of Memory Alpha. There is an article about Bekka. Bekka was from a name tag attached to an uniform; the name tag wasn't seen in the film. So, this article should be placed for deletion. Information about this character would have to be placed in an appendix in the most relevant article. I don't know what that is right now. There is nothing against writing articles for portions of the map seen in . This is why you should never ever link to a page, and altered the text from that page, for any intelligent person can discern that you are bending the rules to your favor. He or she will think you are being petulant and are abusing your admin powers to make a point. So, next time, you want to make a point, and CYA, never link to a page. Most people will not bother to find or even read the resource policy. It's buried deep in Memory Alpha. As for common sense, it is a subjective thing. There is no universal common sense. I have read the common sense policy. It says nothing about the map. It includes a link to common sense at Wikipedia, where it is treated as a topic in epistemology. (In philosophy, this is the theory of knowledge.) People have been debating philosophy for thousands of years, and our civilization is no closer to a consensus on any topic discussed in philosophy. You have your common sense, I have mine. It is ludicrous to expect me to share your common sense. I have learned that concepts like common sense, virtue, vice, and other philosophical topics are abstract. I am not an abstract thinker. I am a concrete thinker. I can understand one point from that common sense page, do not disrupt Memory Alpha to make a point. When you take the steps to mark a page for deletion, when you block a user for an hour, you are being disruptive to Memory Alpha. Why did you do that? Because I wrote a page that had been deleted. Well, I can do that, for I can ignore a rule if I think that I am improving the site. That is in the common sense rules, and on the main Wikipedia page. Again, if you are making a point about not ignoring consensus, why would you include a link to a page that says I can ignore a rule if I believe that my action will work to the betterment of the wikia? Again, CYA by not including the link. You may not like articles about cities and countries from the maps. There is nothing against it in the rules. If I want to write articles about everything on the maps, the rules say I can. If you had never made the links, then I wouldn't be at liberty to say that.Lakenheath72 (talk) 09:14, February 8, 2015 (UTC) :You cannot ignore a rule just because you think what you are doing is an improvement; you must convince others that it is. In this case, there is also a previously agreed to consensus that such pages are not appropriate. It would be like saying that every geographic feature of the Earth should get a page because the Earth has been seen in canon. Having many duplicate pages that say the same thing(X appeared on a map) and only that thing harms the information as it makes it harder to find. :Archduk had every right to block you; you created the disruption, he ended it. Despite what you are told on your userpage by a disgruntled editor, there is no "elite" group here. If you don't like the previously agreed to consensus, you need to convince those already here to change their mind. This is the case on any wiki project, especially Wikipedia(with potentially hundreds of thousands to convince)31dot (talk) 12:05, February 8, 2015 (UTC)